Building Better Formal TVET Systems

Abstract

A broken link between technical and vocational education and training (TVET) systems and labor markets prevents TVET from delivering on its promise in low- and middle-income countries. With its unique focus on workforce development, TVET has the potential to contribute to employment and productivity to better support sustainable economic transformation. The experiences of countries like Austria and Germany whose TVET systems are well-established, and of younger but also strong systems like those of the Republic of Korea or to some extent Malaysia demonstrate what is possible for TVET in low- and middle-income countries (LICs and MICs, together: L/ MICs). When TVET functions well, its graduates have the right skills for today’s jobs but are also prepared to adapt in the future as skills need change. Strong TVET systems can help countries meet the Sustainable Development Goals by sustainably and efficiently supporting employment and productivity. This promise of TVET is unfulfilled in many L/MICs because secondary and post-secondary TVET institutions focus on what they know how to provide, but not what students or firms need. Three main symptoms of this broken link are evident in a wide variety of contexts: challenged TVET learners, unsupported TVET teachers, and weak incentives for TVET providers. Of prime concern are the problems of the TVET learners. Their families are challenged financially: they generally have lower incomes than those of their peers in general education. They are also deprived of the benefits of information about the labor market and about their TVET options. Female learners often suffer further from rigid social norms that prevent them from entering profitable specializations, or from enrolling in TVET at all. Moreover, the foundational skills of TVET learners are weak not only at entry, since many education systems guide or track lower-performing students into these programs, but probably also at graduation, because most TVET programs do not give enough attention to fostering these skills. TVET teachers often lack the pedagogical skills they need to deliver quality training, and they often have little if any industry experience, which is particularly damaging to their ability to acquire and then teach practical skills. Teacher morale, and therefore their motivation, also often suffer from poor working conditions and lack of prestige, even compared to teachers in general education. The third symptom of the broken link is that are few incentives for TVET providers to be accountable to either learners or enterprises. The very little data that is collected looks mainly at inputs, occasionally at outputs, but almost never at results. Most TVET systems are not simply good or simply bad; the problem is that TVET is a risky investment that pays off only for some individuals. Among those who may benefit are students with strong foundational skills who are unlikely to complete a university degree; women with mentors in male-dominated trades; graduates whose fields of study are in demand or who attend a highly respected TVET institution; or those seeking a quicker school-to-work transition—though possibly at the cost of their skills depreciating faster over time. However, this valuable information is usually hidden from the stakeholders who are making decisions. TVET reforms in L/MICs are urgently needed. In the next two decades, demographic trends, coupled with higher completion rates at lower levels of education, are likely to cause an exponential increase in the number of TVET students, particularly in LICs. In Burundi, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, Tanzania, or Uganda, for instance, the number of secondary TVET students is expected to more than quadruple; in Sudan and Niger, the number is expected to rise, respectively, by a factor of six and ten. Demand for TVET from learners whose education was disrupted by COVID-19 may also rise; and that cohort of likely prospective TVET students may require tailored support. However, it may be risky to expand a system that is too often considered a second-tier educational track that takes in disadvantaged learners with weaker foundational skills and that often does not meet labor market needs. The challenge is compounded by the megatrends associated with globalization, technological progress, demographic transformation, and climate change, which affect not only skills demand but also the distribution of economic opportunities. The current moment is ideal for reform, and it offers numerous opportunities to leapfrog barriers to progress. There is a great deal that can be learned from domestic and global practices and evidence, especially from countries like Bangladesh, Brazil, El Salvador, Mongolia, and Mozambique, whose labor market, institutional, fiscal, and capacity constraints are typical of L/MICs. This evidence base is growing, buttressed by tools to improve diagnosis and learning at the system and institutional levels. Technology—if accompanied by complementary investments—has the potential to transform TVET in L/MICs, from course design and development, program delivery, work-based learning (WBL), student services, and recognition of prior learning to governance, labor market information systems, accreditation, and quality assurance. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the development of digital TVET learning models, bringing with it opportunities but also highlighting the many constraints that need to be overcome for these innovations to reach their full potential and contribute to the system’s resilience to future disruptions.

While reform priorities will differ depending on the context, three interrelated transformations point to the types of reforms needed to achieve better TVET. Transforming the system towards excellence, end results, and evidence is underpinned by six policy priorities that address critical common bottlenecks in L/MICs. These priorities help explain at least some of the heterogeneity in performance found in TVET systems across and within countries and in its current contribution to employment and productivity. Policy priorities are often complementary and, in many ways, priorities under the second and third transformations also support the first transformation towards excellence. THE FIRST TRANSFORMATION: From Striving for Recognition to Striving for Excellence. This transformation deals with how to move TVET from being (or being perceived as) a second-tier education track with limited opportunities for continued learning and highly variable returns to guaranteeing demand-driven and equitable acquisition of relevant skills with hands-on and flexible instruction delivered by high-quality teachers with excellent educational resources and infrastructure. The three policy priorities underpinning this transformation focus on who the main clients of TVET are, what skills are taught, and how they are delivered. PRIORITY 1. The Who: Focus on both enterprises1 and learners as the main clients and become more responsive to their needs. To achieve this, TVET must become more demand-driven and more strategic to serve the needs of enterprises, and more student-centered and more equitable to serve the needs of learners. PRIORITY 2. The What: Foster a portfolio of skills by prioritizing foundational skills2 both at entry into TVET and within TVET programs, and by imparting the technical skills demanded by the relevant labor market. Given the weaknesses identified in the foundational skills of TVET learners, these skills need to be prioritized for remediation and continued growth. The focus on technical skills should match labor market needs, which in many contexts include digital, green, and entrepreneurship skills.

PRIORITY 3. The How: Promote an integrated ecosystem with flexible pathways between TVET and general education, hands-on approaches including work based learning, and quality inputs, including teachers, resources, and infrastructure. Striving for excellence in TVET delivery is about three things: (1) flexible pathways, where TVET can become a stepping stone for further studies with a clear articulation of the different options for technical secondary and post secondary education, and smooth integration with formal, non-formal, and informal short-term training and universities as part of a lifelong training process, (2) WBL, which is critical for acquisition of practical skills; and (3) quality inputs, particularly teachers but also curricula, infrastructure, and equipment. THE SECOND TRANSFORMATION: From a Focus on Inputs to a Focus on End Results. This pertains to reforms that increase the autonomy of TVET providers and ensure greater accountability for results as well as using financing to promote needed reforms and target priority needs. PRIORITY 4. PRIORITY 5. Get the balance right between autonomy and accountability of TVET providers. This can be achieved by strengthening quality assurance, though in a simplified and gradual manner to account for local capacity constraints and to involve stakeholders in the process. Direct accountability to learners and enterprises can be strengthened by using information to help learners and enterprises select the most suitable TVET specializations or providers. Realign the financing of TVET to reward reforms and results while increasing financing in under-funded areas. TVET provision is more expensive to deliver than general education, partly due to the higher capital and operating expenses of equipment as well as costs associated with work-based learning, but also often due to resource misallocation. Today, TVET financing is almost universally based on inputs with little to no connection to actual outcomes for learners or to reform efforts. Yet, financing can be a powerful tool to improve outcomes, reduce inefficiencies, and create a space for innovation in service delivery. Realigning financing with labor market and education results, and conducting periodic reviews to obtain feedback and facilitate learning are thus critical reforms. In turn, this should help crowd-in private investment and increase spending in areas that are central but underfunded, such as teacher training or work-based learning. THE THIRD TRANSFORMATION: From Decisions Based on Conjecture to Decisions Based on Evidence. TVET systems in L/MICs are largely operating in the dark, with data scarce and the evidence base limited, particularly in comparison with other parts of the education system. Building a robust information and evaluation system adapted to the L/MIC context is essential for empowering stakeholders to make informed decisions and improving TVET practices. PRIORITY 6. Reduce the information gaps of learners, enterprises, TVET providers, communities, and policymakers by collecting and publicizing detailed data on TVET returns, skills need, and TVET provider inputs and practices. More regular data collection and better analysis and use of information can bring more light to TVET and help different stakeholders to make more informed decisions. There are many quick wins that can demonstrate the benefits of TVET reform and help ignite more fundamental changes. While the three transformations may require significant investment and time, countries can start reforms with a strategic approach to priority sectors and programs that would deliver quicker results and can be used as demonstration cases to build stakeholder confidence and trust. Another example is giving priority to market-driven mechanisms of short-route accountability, which can improve quality and relevance relatively quickly while capacity is being built for enhanced formal quality assurance mechanisms. This report highlights such quick wins and draws lessons from other reform efforts to honor TVET’s promise of contributing to better employment and productivity in support of sustainable economic transformation in L/MIC